^aXiUwu^rX r? £> • 11). uixAAjJUk- 



3a JT\ . yiyuLuC^OAyU C( 





Ciass_£LS? 



STATEMENT 
E . "W. M E T O A. L F , 

Builder of Ship Delphine, 

BEF< 

IT. R. Judiciary- Committee, 
JANUARY, 1876. 






Gentlemen of the Committee: 

Ship Delphine, built by me in Bangor, Maine was de- 
stroyed by the English steamer Sea King or Shenandoah, 
on December 29, 1804. 

Her captain, who owned one-eighth of the ship, was. 
with his wife and child, landed, entirely destitute, in 
Australia. 

Neither the captain nor myself had any insurance. 

As soon as the captain reached home, I transmitted to 
the Department of State a relation of the facts, with evi- 
dence of loss, requesting that measures be taken to secure 
indemnity therefor from the Government of Great Britain, 
or that my own Government should indemnify me, in ful- 
filment of its obligation to protect its citizens from wrong- 
ful injury. 

Several months later the Shenandoah returned to her 
home in England, and was surrendered to the British 
authorities. 

On learning this, I immediately started for England, 
intending to libel her in the English courts. 

On my way to the Liverpool steamer at New York. I 



'O O '"' 



learned that Mr. Adams had taken possession of the 
Shenandoah, for the benefit of the United States, and that 
we were thus deprived of our remedy against her. 

Yet, on learning that my Government had officially 
declared — 

" That a violation of neutrality by the Queen's procla- 
mation and kindred proceedings of the British govern- 
ment is regarded as a national wrong and injury to the 
United States, and that the lowest form of satisfaction for 
that national injury that the United States could accept 
would be found in an indemnity, without reservation or 
compromise, by the British government to those citizens 
of the United States who had suffered individual injury 
and damage by the vessels of war unlawfully built, 
equipped, manned, fitted out, or entertained and pro- 
tected in the British ports and harbors," (Correspond- 
ence Concerning Claims vs. Great Britain, vol. 3, p. 588,) — 

T rested content in the hope of ultimate indemnity. 

The history of the correspondence and negotiations be- 
tween the two Governments is a long one, and doubtless 
familiar to you all. 

During the progress of these negotiations the President 
recommended to Congress that— 

" Authority be given for the settlement of these claims 
by the United States, so that the Government shall have 
the ownership of the private claims, as well as the re- 
sponsible control of all the demands against Great 
Britain." 

(Message of President Grant, December 5, L870.) 

Before Congress had time to act upon this suggestion 
the Joint High Commission was appointed, which resulted 
in the Treaty of Washington and the Geneva Tribunal. 

But Secretary Fish and his associate Commissioners in 
negotiating the Treaty seemed to assume that Congress 
won id lake some action which would be equivalent to the 



President's recommendation to assume and pay these 
claims, for, although special provision was made for all 
claims of private citizens other than Alabama claims, the 
Alabama claims were treated as belonging exclusively to 
the Government, no mention whatever being made in the 
Treaty of* any interest of private individuals in them. 

They have ever since been thus treated by this Govern- 
ment. The Secretary of State instructed the agent and 
counsel of the United States at Geneva that — 

" The President desires to have the subject discussed as 
one between the two governments, and he directs me to 
urge upon you strongly to secure, if possible, the award 
of a sum in gross. In the discussion of this question, and 
in the treatment of the entire case, you will be careful 
not to commit the Government as to the disposition of 
what may be awarded. :i " If the value. of the prop- 

erty captured or destroyed be recovered name of 

the Government, the distribution of the amount recovered 
will be made by this Government, without committal as to 
the mode of distribution.'' 

(Papers relating to Treaty of Washington, vol. 2, p. 11-i.) 

The counsel therefore said to the Tribunal at Geneva : 
" These claims are all preferred by the United States as a 
nation against Great Britain as a nation, and are to be so 
computed and paid." (Papers, <fec, vol. 3, p. 16.) 

To show the reason for and the effect of this course, I 
quote from "A Short History of Long Negotiations," pp. 
16, 19, 23, 24, 25, and 26: * 

" This arrangement was of great importance. It was 
important that the Government should be left free to> dis- 
tribute whatever amount might be recovered as indemnity 
to the losers, according to principles of equity and justice, 
uncontrolled by any question of international obligation. 
It was more important that the Government should be in 
a position to labor in all its dealings with the Tribunal to 
establish tihese principles which would be most advanta- 



geous in the future to itself as a nation, and to guard 
against the danger that by the action of the Tribunal 
neutral nations should be held to such strict accounta- 
bility for the acts of their subjects as to make their posi- 
tion difficult and dangerous. The interests of private 
claimants were opposed to the broader interests of the na- 
tion in these respects. It was well for the nation to re- 
lieve itself from the embarrassment under which it would 
have been placed had it gone before the Tribunal as agent 
or attorney for these private claimants, with the obliga- 
tions which such relations would impose. :!: 

" Secretary Seward had insisted that England owed 
apology and indemnity for her hasty recognition of the 
Confederates as belligerents, and relied on this to support 
the claims of private citizens. He had declined all plans 
of arbitration which should not consider this recognition 
as a basis of these claims. England, after persistent re- 
fusal, had at last consented that it be so considered. But 
President Grant, for reasons exclusively national, refused 
to base any claim in the Treaty, or in our case against 
England, on the fact of her having exercised her right 
with ill-judged and unfriendly haste. He thus virtually 
abandoned a part of the claims of citizens of the United 
States against England. It would have been wrong for 
him to have done otherwise. It was condoning England's 
fault for a consideration valuable to the nation, thus 
transferring England's obligation, so far as concerned cit- 
izens of the United States, to the Government of the 
United States. But the nation could afford, and had the 
right, to act upon the President's recommendation to in- 
demnify these citizens for England's wrong. It could not 
afford, had not the right, to sacrifice its own interests or 
lessen its power for good among the nations." 

The Treaty limited the Tribunal to the consideration 
of claims " growing out of acts of the several vessels," and 
required the Tribunal: "First. To determine as to each 
vessel separately, whether Great Britain has, by any act 
or omission, failed to fulfill any of the duties set forth in 
three new rules, or recognized by the principles of inter- 



national law riot inconsistent with said rules, and certify 
such fact as to each of the said vessels," thus determining 
for the future the liability of neutrals in similar cases, 
hut conferred the power, by article 7, to award a sum in 
gross for all the claim* referred to it. 

Great Britain was nominally held derelict as regards 
the acts of only two vessels, with their tenders, and a 
part of the acts of a third, but $15,500,000 was awarded 
as the sum in gross to he paid by Great Britain to the United 
States for all the claim* referred to the Tribunal. 

" This determining and limiting the liability of neutrals 
for the future was of vast importance to the United 
States, of vastly greater importance than the amount 
awarded, for we had disposed of the only difficulty which 
could be likely to cause war among ourselves, and settled 
those questions which might have involved us in war 
with others. We had reason to expect to be at peace, 
and to be neutral. It might, however, have been unfor- 
tunate for individual sufferers if their rights as regards 
either nation had been determined by these purely na- 
tional considerations." 

" The United States, (although going before the Tribunal 
as a belligerent with a case against a neutral,) ' regarding the 
mere question of the amount of national damages to be 
awarded as secondary to the higher consideration of the wel- 
fare and the honor of the United States,' (Papers, &c, vol. 3, 
p. 2J4,) expressly stated by its counsel to the Tribunal that 
' both the sentiments and the interests of the United States, 
their history and their future, have made, and will make 
them, the principal advocates and defenders of the rights 
of neutrals before all the world. It is not for their in- 
terests to exaggerate the responsibilities of neutrals, but 
only in the sense of their action in this respect, through- 
out their whole national lifetime, to restrain the field of 
arms, and enlarge that of peace.' (Same, p. 223.) 

"Hence, when the arbitrators decided, as regards so 
many of the vessels, that England had not violated the 
three rules,, or the laws of nations, thus defining the effect 



6 

and value of those rules and laws for all future time, 
it was a decision in favor of, not against, the United 
States.". . . . 

This decision, so valuable to the United States as a na- 
tion, restricted the rules of neutral obligation so much as 
to exclude about $1/200, 000 of actual loss by destructions 
(my own ship among the number) for which our Govern- 
ment would undoubtedly have indemnified its citizens had 
the settlement been made by Congress, as advised by the 
President, for " Losses occasioned by all Confederate cruisers 
outside of Confederate waters would have been paid. The 
United States had justly demanded of Great Britain full 
indemnity for the acts of all these cruisers, basing this de- 
mand upon the Queen's proclamation granting belligerent 
rights, which was, and which our Government had de- 
clared to be, ' the cause, and the only cause,' in which 
' this evil had its origin/ 

"The Government, alter having so delinitelv and com- 
pletely endorsed and insisted upon this obligation to its 
citizens, could not, in a settlement with those citizens, 
have ignored this obligation." (See Five Minutes in Re- 
ply, bound herewith.) 

Under the facts as portrayed in the above quotations, I 
confidently wailed until the subject of the distribution of 
the Geneva Award was under consideration by Congress 
and then briefly stated my case to this committee. (See 
Builder of ship Delphine before H. R. Judiciary Com.) 

They reported a bill which provided indemnity for all 
of the excluded $1,200,000. It passed the House by a 
large majority. The Senate, although adopting the same 
theory, provided for only a part of the sufferers. But. by 
joint agreement, the balance of the award remains a fund 
from which Congress may hereafter authorize the pay- 
ment of other claims thereon. 

Being still left without redress, I again, last session. 



1 

stated ray case to the committee, and they again reported 
in my favor; but for want of time no action was reached. 

I said: 

The Government of the United States was in j:>os- 
session of money received by virtue of the award at 
Geneva, according to the Treaty of Washington. 

The money had been paid by Great Britain to the 
United States "as the indemnity" for injuries inflicted 
upon this nation, in the person of its citizens, through the 
fault of England. 

It was awarded " for the satisfaction of all the claims 
referred to the consideration of the Tribunal." ' 

By the Treaty of Washington, and this award, " all the 
claims growing out of the acts committed by the several 
vessels" were, as against England, "fully, perfectly, and 
finally settled.'' c2) 

My ship Delphihi had, through the fault of England, 
been destroyed by one of these vessels. Before her de- 
struction my Government had officially notified the gov- 
ernment of Great Britain that it would " claim redress for 
the injuries which might be inflicted " on me, as a citizen 
of the United States, by such destruction. 

Allow me to quote these notices from the diplomatic 
correspondence. They all relate to the Shenandoah before 
Melbourne : 

(ISTo. 1 171.) 

Department of State, Wash., Dec 3, 186-4-. 

Sir : Information has reached this Department to the 
effect that the British steamer Laurel, reported to have 
sailed from Liverpool with Semmes and one hundred 
picked men, met by appointment the English steamer 
Sea King at the Desertas of the Madeira, and there trans- 
ferred to the Sea King, Semmes and crew, armament, 
munitions, and stores . . . . 

Thus it would seem that the notorious commander of 
the Alabama has again obtained command of a British- 



built vessel, which has been supplied by another British 
vessel with men, arms, and munitions carried out from a 
British port, and is now at large on the high seas for the 
purpose of committing depredations upon the commerce 
of the United States. 

I will thank you to bring the case under the attention of 
Earl Russell, protesting against any sac//, arrangement as 
that above indicated, and informing his Lordship that if 
it is correctly stated this Government considers that Her 
Majesty's government may be held justly responsible for any 
losses accruing to citizens of the United States through the 
depredations of the Sea King. 

1 am, sir, vour obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., vVrc 

(Correspondence < ioncerning ( llaims us. Great Britain, vol. 
3, p. 330.) 

A* soon an it had knowledge of the destruction of my 
ship, this Government again officially notified that it 
" could not avoid entailing upon the government of Great 
Britain the responsibility for this damage." 

{Wo. 1250.) Department of State, 

Washington, Jan. 27, 1865. 

Sir: Referring to my dispatch of the 3d ultimo, No. 
1171, in regard to the Sea King or Shenandoah, and to 
subsequent correspondence on the subject, I now trans- 
mit a copy of a dispatch from James Monroe,* Esq., the 
consul of the United States at Rio de Janeiro, containing 
a statement in relation to the destruction of four United 
States merchant vessels, with their cargoes. . . .It appears 
from - the information presented with Mr. Monroe's dis- 
patch that, with the exception of the name of the com- 
mander, the representation contained in my No. 117 1 is 
corroborated. Under these circumstances / have to re- 
quest you, to inform Her Majesty's government that the 
United States will claim redress for the injuries and losses 



* Mr. Monroe now represents the 18th District of Ohio in the 
House of Eepresentatives. 



inflicted on their citizens by the depredations of the Sen 
King or Shenandoah. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM II. SEWARD. 
Chakles Francis Adams, Esq., &c, &c, ifcc. 

(Correspondence, Claims, &c., vol. 3, p. 335.) 

My Government did claim of Great Britain redress for 
the injuries inflicted on me. 

{Adams t<> Russell.) 

Legation of the United States, 

London, April 7. 1865. 

My Lord : 1 have the honor to transmit to you a copy 
of a letter addressed to the Secretary of State at Washing- 
ton, by the consul of the United Kates at Rio Janeiro, 
Mr. Monroe, making a report of the depredations com- 
mitted upon the commerce of the L T nited States by the 
vessel known in the port of London as the Sea King, but 
since transformed into the Shenandoah. This same ves- 
sel has been, since the date of VI r. Monroe's letter, heard, 
of at Melbourne, from which place further details of sim- 
ilar outrages have been received. ... 

Were there any reasons to believe that the operations 
carried or in the ports of Her Majesty's kingdom and its 
dependencies to maintain and extend this systematic de- 
predation upon the commerce of a friendly people had 
been materially relaxed or prevented, I should not be 
under the painful necessity of announcing to your Lord- 
ship the fact that my Government cannot avoid entailing 
upon the government of Great Britain the responsibility 
///is damage.. . . . 

So far as I am aware, not a single vessel has been en- 
gaged in these depredations excepting such as have been 
furnished from the ports of Her Majesty's kingdom ; un- 
less, indeed, I might except one or two passenger steamers 
belonging to persons in New York, forcibly taken posses- 
sion of in the beginning of the war, feebly armed, and 
very quickly rendered useless for any aggressive pur- 
pose. . . . 

I am reluctantly compelled to acknowledge the belief 
that practically this evil had its origin in the first step 



10 

taken, which never can be regarded by my Government 
in any other light than as precipitate, of acknowledging 
persons as a belligerent- power on the ocean before they 
had a single vessel of their own to show floating upon it. 
The result of that proceeding has been that the power in 
question, so far as it can be entitled to the name of a 
belligerent on the ocean at all, was actually created in 
consequence of the recognition, and not before ; and all 
that it has subsequently attained of such a position has 
been through the labor of the subjects of the very country 
which gave it the shelter of that title in advance. 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Right Hon. Earl Russkll, &c, Arc, &c. 
(Same, p. 345.) 

Thus my Government claimed of Great Britain redress 
for the injuries inflicted on me, (3) and by the Treaty of 
Washington " fully, perfectly, and finally settled " the 
claim, m receiving therefor in the Geneva award full satis- 
faction in money; (4) and satisfaction again, in the value of 
the Shenandoah herself, when the Government of the 
United States, for its own benefit, deprived* me of remedy 
against her. 

.It also received, in other considerations more important 
than money, vastly more than full compensation. 

Under these facts, I, last year, thought it not unreason- 
able to ask you to recommend legislation which would in- 
sure to me indemnity for my loss. (6-) 

In support of my prayer, I urged that the owners of 
ship Delphine, all of whom I represent, had suffered by 
the wrongful acts of England, from which we had the 
right to ask protection of our Government; that our Gov- 
ernment had condoned the wrong, had deprived us of all 
remedy against England, and in the condoning had re- 
ceived abundant compensation for the injury done to us ; 
that this nation had endorsed our claim ; that we still 
held that endorsement, for the settlement with the respond- 
ent by the endorser, where he receives full value for the 



11 

claim, cannot cancel, but must strengthen, the obligation 
of that endorser to the claimant ; that our Government 
refused to give the Tribunal jurisdiction of the question 
who should share in the distribution of the award ; (7) that 
the Tribunal refused to take such jurisdiction ; (S; that the 
Tribunal was purely international, and could have no 
jurisdiction over questions of obligation of either govern- 
ment to its subjects ; that no question of obligation of gov- 
ernment to its citizens was submitted to or considered by 
the Tribunal; hence its action could decide no such ques- 
tion, or impose on this Government any trusteeship or 
obligation other than to administer its award- with impar- 
tial justice. 

Your committee listened favorably to my prayer, and 
framed a bill which, had it been enacted, would have 
secured justice. 

It provided for the payment — 

" First. For all loss, destruction, or damage by any 
Confederate cruiser, for whose acts the Government of 
the United States have made demand upon the govern- 
ment of Great Britain." 

But certain parties who had suffered no injury by the 
fault of England, but had been largely benefited by the 
consequences of that fault, (9) opposed the passage of your 
bill, and demanded, on purely technical grounds, that 
they should be included, and sufferers like myself excluded 
in the distribution of the award. 

Their demand was supported by the influence and abil- 
ity of the ablest lawyers whose services they could secure. 
And although the bill, as reported by you, passed the 
House of Representatives by a large majority, it failed of 
approval in the Senate. 

A law was enacted which practically provided indem- 
nity for actual loss caused to insurance companies by 
Confederate cruisers, whether included or not in the rules 



12 

of international obligation determined at Geneva ; but it 
provided no indemnity for me and many others who, like 
me, had suffered direct loss through England's fault. 

Even this law was opposed by attorneys of insurance 
companies, because it did not, besides indemnity, provide 
for the payment to them of enormous sums, in addition to 
the enormous profits which the wrongful acts of England 
had enabled them to secure, and this notwithstanding the 
fact that, as regards the fault of England, their claims 
"fall within that elementary rule of damages, so familiar 
to the legal profession, that only such damages are recov- 
erable as are the direct, immediate, necessary result of the 
act." For they need not have paid a single dollar of the 
loss even though England's wrongful acts had caused the 
destruction of every American ship afloat. Their having 
to pay was the result of their own act, by which they, in 
the hope and realization of great gain, voluntarily assumed 
the risk. It was in no sense the necessary result of Eng- 
land's fault, That fault only gave them the opportunity, 
which they so eagerly embraced, to enlarge their profit- 
able business. 

The payments authorized by this law appropriate about 
half of the Geneva Award, the balance remaining " a fund 
from which Congress may hereafter authorize the pay- 
ment of other claims thereon." 

In view of these facts and this precedent, I again, hum- 
bly but earnestly, pray that your committee recommend 
Congress to authorize the payment of such claims as 
mine. 

I am aware that we, as citizens, have no legal remedy 
against our Government. But does not this fact, together 
with the fact that Congress makes the laws and makes 
the courts to administer them, changing either at its will^ 
remove the whole matter from the atmosphere of mere 
legal technicalities to the higher one of moral obligation ? 



13 

and for Congress, emphasize the question, what is right f 
What ought the law to be ? 

The International Tribunal made, could make, no law 
for the distribution of its award. Governments only, no 
citizens, as such, had any part in or wore represented in 
the Tribunal, or in that portion of the Treaty which cre- 
ated it. Hence, no citizen was either included or excluded 
by its decision. 

This nation is morally forbidden to plead as a bar to 
my claim that it was nominally not included in the Tri- 
bunal's rules of international obligation, for the exclusion 
depended on the fact that this Government accepted an 
apology and three new rules, of value .to itself, as " the 
means of" so "reducing the measure of the complaint 
and demand for indemnity before the Tribunal " ""' as to 
insure such exclusion, u) the exclusion itself being of very 
great value to this nation 

When this Government abandoned the claims for 
compensation founded on the Queen's proclamation, (11) it, 
for its own interests, withdrew from the case, and re- 
fused to place before the Tribunal as a basis for its claims 
that great initial wrong of Great Britain, which was " the 
cause, and the only cause," in which "this evil had its 
origin," " from which all the grievances seem deducible," 
without which no Confederate vessel could have existed 
outside of Confederate waters or Anglo-Confederate vessel 
destroyed a single ship. 

It was the right and the duty of this Government to do 
as it did, for it was a great nation acting for itself, in the 
interest of all its people. 

Had it been, as some claim it was, acting as collecting 
agent for a few individuals, such conduct would have 
been so dishonest and dishonorable as to exclude any at- 
torney from practicing at any bar. 



14 

If this abandonment of the sure foundation for a part 
of the claims, and limiting the evidence to the " acts com- 
mitted by the several vessels," practically insured the de- 
cision (ia) which the best interests of this nation required, 
did it not transfer to this nation the moral obligation to 
indemnify those who suffered by the wrong? 

As so well ex] tressed in the report of this committee, 

(p. ")- 

" Having for its own interest withdrawn from the Ar- 
bitrators the ' cause and only cause of the* evil,' thus leav- 
ing the Tribunal without evidence of that liability of 
England which the United States had over and over 
again in every diplomatic form insisted upon, is not the 
United States estopped from denying reparation to its 
citizens based upon the rinding of a tribunal, to which, 
for its own purposes, it would not submit the evidence ? 
Indeed, by so doing, did not our Government assume 
this class of losses of its citizens ?" 

Our Government demanded and received a gross sum 
as " satisfaction of all the claims'' — a sum which is and 
doubtless was intended by the arbitrators to be ■ sufficient 
to enable our Government to indemnify from this fund 
all loyal American citizens who suffered actual loss on 
the sea through England's fault. 

"What is due to Great Britain in regard to this mat- 
ter" has been asked by those who claim that we are 
bound by the award to exclude those who lost directly by 
the fault of England, in order to add, from the sum 
awarded as indemnity for that fault, millions of dollars 
to the millions of profit already secured by insurers in 
consequence of that fault. 

The question is answered and the view I take fully sus- 
tained by the crown lawyers of England and by the offi- 
cial action of that government 



15 

British property was in and British underwriters had 
insured the cargoes of ships which were destroyed by the 
Alabama. They, claiming that by the Geneva Award 
American citizens had been indemnified for similar loss, 
asked indemnity of their government. 

Under the advice of the law officers the British govern- 
ment rejected their claim. ' ( " , 

During debate in the British Parliament. Mr. Ander- 
son asked: "If we were obliged to pay for damage sus- 
tained by the Americans, by reason 6f the conduct of the 
Alabama, why were we not equally bound to pay for the 
damage sustained by our own subjects by reason of the 
acts of that vessel ?" (15) 

Mr. Gladstone, then Prime Minister, said : " It appears 
to be implied that the government submitted the claims 
of certain persons not subjects of Her Majesty to arbitra- 
tion." 

" This is altogether a mistake. No claims of individuals 
have been submitted to arbitration in relation to the Ala- 
bama." 

" What was submitted to arbitration, was entirely a ques- 
tion between the two governments. (l,,) ''' 

Our Government refused in advance to be controlled 
in its relation to its citizens by the decisions of the Tri- 
bunal. (17) 

It promised to distribute the amount recovered, (l8) but 
refused to be committed as to the mode of distribution, 
and instructed its counsel at Geneva to avoid all such 
committal, which they did. 

Yet the opinions of the Arbitrators are entitled to the 
utmost consideration, and should be followed wherever 
applicable. None of their utterances seem more reason- 
able or of broader application than " Whereas, in order 
to arrive at an equitable compensation for the damages 



16 

which have been sustained, it is necessary to set aside all 
double claims for the same losses." 

This, as well as their opinion regarding 'prospective 
earnings," " gross freights, so far as they exceed net 
freights," and interest, were deemed applicable, and have 
been adopted in the law for the partial distribution of the 
fund which was enacted last session. 

The double claims for the same losses, when insurers 
claimed pay from the assured and also from the Govern- 
ment, were set aside. Insurers, however, were not re- 
quired to refund any part of the double pay for their 
losses, which they had already received from the assured. 
And they were allowed to take into their account all their 
losses occasioned by all the Confederate cruisers, without 
regard to the decisions of the Tribunal, and whether or 
not occasioned by a cruiser for whose acts the Govern- 
ment of the United States had made demand upon the 
government of Great Britain. 

With these facts and this precedent before you, can any 
member of your Honorable Committee fail to believe that 
my prayer is fully within the bounds of justice and rea- 
son, and endorsed by the demands of national honor ? 

I ask for less in principle than Congress has already 
provided for insurance companies, for although the 11th 
section of the law seems to exclude all losses except those 
caused by the Alabama, Florida, and their tenders, and 
the Shenandoah, after her departure from Melbourne, the 
llth. section allows those insurance companies which lost 
by these vessels, and thus gained a standing in the Court 
to take into account all their losses by all the Confederate 
vessels during all the mar. Only five small companies are 
thus excluded from the Court ; their aggregate loss was 
but$4cS,163. I see no reason why the law should dis- 
criminate against them. 



11 

To be as liberal in principle to others as Congress has 
already been to insurance companies would involve the 
payment of all that is provided in Mr. LuttrelPs bill and 
about $200,000 more for actual loss caused by the little 
vessels called the " Musquito fleet " — the Boston, Calhoun, 
Echo, Jeff. Davis, Winsloiv, Sallie, Savannah, and St. 
Nicholas. 

Granting my prayer will involve the appropriation of 
but a very small part of what will remain of the fund, for 
our loss, with interest, is but little more than $125,000 

It will require less than $1,200,000, exclusive of in- 
terest, to indemnify for all the losses occasioned by all 
those cruisers for the acts of which our Government de- 
manded indemnity of Great Britain, and which are not 
already provided for by law. 

The events of the war have enriched other claimants 
and enabled them to employ what they esteemed the 
ablest legal talent in the world to argue in favor of their 
claims. These same events compel me to depend upon 
my own recital of the simple facts, trusting that you will 
make the arguments in favor of the right. 

To obviate all questions as to facts, I will, with your 
permission, submit references to authorities, with quota- 
tions. They substantiate every statement I have made. 

E. W. METCALF. 

Jamiary, 1876. 



Last Congress Hon. Mr. Evarts had the attention of 
this committee for about three hours. 

I was promised five minutes, in which to reply, but 
failed to get the time. 



18 

Will you allow me to now read what I would then 
have said ? 

FIYE MINUTES 

In reply to Argument for Insurance Companies, before H. R. 
Judiciary Committee. 



BY E. W. METCALF. 



January, 1874. 

Hon. Mr. Evarts quoted from the President's message, as 
follows : 

" I therefore recommend to Congress to authorize the appoint- 
ment of a Commission, to take proof of the amount and the 
ownership of these several claims, * * and that authority he 
given for the settlement of these claims by the United States, 
so that the Government shall have the ownership of the private 
claims, as well as the responsible control of all the demands 
against Great Britain." l 

Then, speaking in behalf of insurance companies, Mr. Evarts 
claimed that the President thus acknowledged an obligation of 
the Government to its citizens, the nature or measure of which 
subsequent negotiations and treaties have not changed, except 
that it is strengthened by the fact that indemnity in money has 
been received by the Government for England's fault. 

This suggests the inquiry — Who would have received indem- 
nity in the settlement, had the course so recommended by the 
President been adopted '. 

FIBST. 

No distinction could or would have been made between losses 
caused by the Georgia and the Alabama, or between the Shenan- 
doah before and after Australia, for no distinction existed in 
their history, in the wrongfulness of their acts, or in the losses 
which they occasioned. The distinctions afterward made by 
the Tribunal related to the questions of inte7*national obliga- 



1. President's Message, Dee. •">. L870. 



19 

tion, and are of vast prospective importance and value to this 
nation, but did not touch the question of obligation to our own 
citizens. 2 

SECOND. 

Losses occasioned by all Confederate cruisers outside of Con- 
federate waters would have been paid, for the United States had 
justly demanded of Great Britain full indemnity for the acts of 
all these cruisers, basing this demand upon that act of Great 
Britain which was, and which our Government had declared to 
be, (1 quote its words,) "precipitate," 3 " unprecedented," 3 " un- 
justifiable," "the cause, and the only cause," 4 in which "this 
evil had its origin," 5 "from which all the grievances seem de- 
ducible," 6 which " actually created,"" 7 gave "birth" 7 to their 
belligerent power, " by acknowledging persons as a belligerent 
power on the ocean before they had a single vessel floating 
upon it." 7 

And even after the nation had, for considerations of national 
importance only, "abandoned the claims for compensation 
founded upon the Queen's proclamation," 8 and basing its claims 
only on the small resultant remainder of the wrong, the United 
States still insisted that the "obligation to make full eompen- 
ration for the acts of these vessels was entailed upon Great 
Britain," 9 and asked the Tribunal at Geneva to make an award 
in gross, and, in considering its amount, to take into account 
the losses of individuals in the destruction of their vessels and 
cargoes by the Sumter™ JVashv/'lle, Retribution™ Talla- 
hassee™ etc. 

2. Corresjaondence, etc., Claims vs. Great Britain, vol. 5, pp. 577, 586 to 591. 

3. Same, Vol. 3, pp. 533, 534. 

4. Same, Vol. 1, p. 226. 

5. Same, Vol. 1, p. 292. 

6. Same, Vol. 1, p. 242. 

7. Same, Vol. 1, p. 292 ; Vol. 3, p. 533. 

8. Papers relating to Treaty of Washington, Vol. 3, pp. 196, 209. 

9. American Case, p. 163. 

10. Same, p. 132. 

11. Same, p. 133. 

12. Same, p. 156. 

13. Same. pp. 164, 1(15. 



20 

The Government, after having so definitely and completely 

endorsed and insisted upon this obligation to its citizens, could 
not, in a settlement with those citizens, have ignored this obli- 
gation. 

THIRD. 

Insurance companies would not have received a dollar; for 
their claims upon the Government for compensation, where 
property on which they had paid the insurance has been lost or 
destroyed, " have always been dismissed, on the ground that 
they were, paid for the risk, and could not ask the Government 
to hold them harmless.'" 14 

FOURTH. 

The Government, by such settlement, and making full in- 
demnity for all the loss to individuals, caused by all the Confed- 
erate cruisers, would have paid out millions of dollars less than 
it has since received as indemnity from England ; for all the 
actual unindemnified loss caused by all those cruisers, not in- 
cluded in the rules of international obligation established by the 
Geneva Tribunal, does not exceed $1,200,000, while the Tri- 
bunal justly awarded to the nation indemnity for all the prop- 
erty destroyed by the cruisers which were included in those 
rules, deducting nothing; for the indemnities which individuals 
had received, which amount to about $5,750,000. 

Thus the Government has in its possession money, received 
as indemnity for England's fault, sufficient to pay its citizens 
for all their losses directly resulting from that fault, and at 
least $4,500,000 more, which, if its original obligation had not 
been changed by subsequent negotiations, the Government is at 
liberty to disburse to those who suffered less directly from 
England's wrong, but to which insurance companies can make 
no claim. 

Have subsequent negotiations changed the obligation ? Does 
the fact that England has indemnified this nation for a wrong 
to itself, which was no wro?ig but a benefit to insurers, create 



14. Letter from W. B. Washburn. 



21 

an obligation, which did not before exist, to hold insurers (who 
were paid their own price for the risks they took) harmless from 
the consequences of their own voluntary act '. Especially, 
when the Tribunal which awarded the indemnity rejected the 
claim of insurers, and enunciated a broad principle which mu^t 
always exclude them, in these words: 

" Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable compensation 
for the damages vdiich have been sustained, it is necessary to 
set aside all double claims for the same losses." 1,1 15 

Has the surrender by our Government, J or its own benefit, of 
the principal foundation for the claims of its citizens, and the 
settlement, so advantageous to itself — which cancels and bars 
those claims against England, and transfers the obligations to 
this] country — relieved the Government from its obligation, 
which did before exist, to settle with those citizens ? 16 

Although the President and Senate alone -have exclusive 
jurisdiction over international questions, and the undoubted 
right to surrender for the public benefit any claim of private 
citizens as against a foreign power, have they alone any legisla- 
tive authority I 

Would such surrender cancel the claim, or only transfer the 
obligation to this nation I 

Could the President and Senate alone make or change any 
law touching the obligation of the Government to the people \ 

Could they delegate to a Tribunal any power which they 
themselves did not possess ? 

If not, could the Tribunal at Geneva make any law for the 
distribution of its award which would be binding upon the 
Congress or courts of the United States ? 

• Did the Government of the United States, in matters relating 
to the Treaty of Washington, act for itself, to protect its own 
dignity, honor, and interests, and establish great principles of 
international law and precedents, which shall benefit its people 
and all peoples for all time ; or, did it act simply as an attorney, 
employed by certain individuals who had, or fancied they had, 
sundry claims against England? 

15. Award of the Tribunal. 

16. Papers, tic., Vol. '6, p. 223; Vol. 2, p. 216; and "Short History of Long 
Negotiations." v 



22 

It' the first, its success was complete and glorious, one in 
regard to which every American may rejoice and be proud ; if 
the second, only partial, and at best of slight importance. 

Which view of the case will Congress take, in its legislation 
for the distribution of the Geneva Award ? 

If an attorney, it may say to certain of its clients : " Your bill 
is collected — here is your money ;" and to others : " Your bill 
was not collected ; there is nothing for you." 

The disappointed client may ask : " Why not ? Was not my 
loss as real and my claim as just as that of him you paid ?" 

" Oh, yes ! and even more so," attorney replies ; " but, for 
certain reasons of great importance to myself it was thought 
not best to have judgment issue for such claims as yours." 

If an attorney, a selfish and dishonest one ! Every honorable 
impulse says No ! Not an attorney acting for a few individ- 
uals, but a great nation, acting for itself and for humanity ! 

I have expressed these views as a business man. I feel sure 
that the business men of the country will endorse them. 

E. W. METCALF. 

Builder of Ship Dflphine. 

NOTES. 
1. 

" In case the Tribunal find that Great Britain has failed to 
fulfil any duty or duties as aforesaid, it may, if it think proper, 
proceed to award a sum in gross, to be paid by Great Britain 
to the United States for all the claims referred to it." {Treaty 
of Wash., Art. 7.) — " The Tribunal, making use of the autho- 
rity conferred upon it by Art. 7 of the said treaty, by a majority 
of four voices to 'one, awards to the United States the sum of 
$15,500,000 in gold, as the indemnity to be paid by Great Brit- 
ain to the United States, for the satisfaction of all the claims 
referred to the consideration of the Tribunal.' 1 '' {Decision and 
award. Papers relating to Treaty Wash., vol. 4, p. 53.) — 
" It does not appear in the protocols how the arbitrators arrived 
at this amount. I am informed that it was readied by mutual 



23 

concessions. The neutral arbitrators and Mr. Adams, from the 
beginning of the proceedings, were convinced of the policy of 
awarding a sum in gross. * * * We therefore devoted our 
energies toward securing such a sum as should be practically 
an indemnity to the sufferers. Whether we have or have not 
been successful can be determined only by the final division of 
the sum." — (Mr. Davis* Beport, same vol. ±,p. 8.) 

2. 

"The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the result 
of the proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration * * as 
a full, perfect, and final settlement of all the claims hereinbefore 
referred to: and further engage that every such claim * * * 
shall be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and 
henceforth inadmissible" — {Treaty of Wash., Art. 11.) "And 
in accordance with the terms of Art. 11 of the said treaty, the 
Tribunal declares that 'all the claims referred to in the treaty 
as submitted to the Tribunal are hereby fully, perfectly and 
-finally settled? " — {Decision and Award Papers, c&c, Vol. 
4,^.53.) 

3. 

Claim for my loss was presented to the Tribunal at Geneva, 
as follows : 

DELPHINE. 

Ship Delphine, of Bangor, Maine ; of 705 35-95 tons burden 
— William Green Nichols, master. E. W. Metcalf (and others) 
owners. Sailed October 12, 1864, from London for Akyab ; 
was captured and destroyed Dec. 29, 1864, in latitude 39 deg. 
20 min. south, longitude 69 deg. east, by the Shenandoah. 

Total claims tiled, $93,100.00. 

* * (Then follows list of items.) * * 

{Revised List of Claims, p. 234.) 



Gross amount of claims for losses growing out 
of the destruction of vessels and their car- 
goes by the insurgent cruisers $20,261,950 60 



24 

Less double claims for the same losses, (includ- 
ing about $5,700,000 by insurance compan- 
ies,) prospective earnings, and gross freight, 

exceeding net freight, about 12,461,950 60 

Leaving as unindemnified loss, occasioned by 

all the rebel cruisers, say 7,800,000 00 

Insurers paid for war losses about 5,750,000 00 

They received in war premiums not less than. 10,000,000 00 
(Short Hist. Long Negotiations, p. 32.) 

" The settlement of the less important matter of money in- 
demnity was such as ought to be satisfactory to the United 
States, for the amount awarded is sufficient to pay a fair indem- 
nity for all the destruction of property for which claims were 
presented to the Tribunal. The United States offered to accept 
as consideration for the national claims a rule which would have 
precisely the same effect as the decision excluding them, given 
by the Tribunal. 

" The value of the property captured or destroyed had been 
'• recovered in the name of the Government,' and the Govern- 
ment left ' free to decide as to the rights and claims of in- 
surers.' " (Same, p. 28.) 

"Whether the sum awarded be adequate, depends, in my 
opinion, on whether distribution be made among actual losers 
only and citizens of the United States." (Caleb Cushing in 
"Treaty Wash.," p. 167.) 

• 5. 

Danger of war was averted; a benefit which cannot be esti- 
mated in money. 

Advantage for neutrals was gained, which is of great pros- 
pective value to the United States. 

" The world needed, and it was especially the interest of the 
United States, to have not only the privileges but the obliga- 
tions of neutrals well denned and established. 

The English agent and counsel earned the thanks of the 
United States, not of England, when they urged the fact in re- 
gard to the Georgia, that — 

"Information about the construction and outfit of the vessel 



25 

had for a long time before her departure been in the possession 

of Mr. Adams, hut do communication was made by him to Her 
Majesty's government on the subject, until six days after the 
ship had sailed." 

When they urged that — 

'The complaints of the United States might not have been 
necessary if Mr. Adams had communicated in good time such 
information as lie possessed. 1 

When the'v urged, in regard to the Shenandoah* that 'It will 
have been seen also that no representation had been made to 
Her Majesty's Government respecting her, by Mr. Adams ' — for 
the decision of the Tribunal, (so valuable for neutrals, and so 
unfortunate for belligerents,) as regards these vessels, seems to 
have resulted from the lack of proof that English officials had 
knowledge of their character before they sailed.' — (Shoi't His- 
tory of Long Negotiations.) 

No. 18. Mr. Fish to Mr. Sqhenck. 

" * ' * * In this correspondence I have gone as far as 
prudence would allow in intimating that we neither desired nor 
expected any pecuniary award, and that we should be content 
with an award that a State is not liable in pecuniary damages 
for the indirect results of a failure to observe its neutral obli- 
gations. It is not the interest of a country situate as are the 
United States, with their large extent of sea-coast, a small navy, 
and smaller internal police, to have it established that a nation 
is liable in damages, &e. * * This Government expects 
to be in the future as it has been in the past, a neutral much 
more of the time than a belligerent." * (Papers, 

t£c\, Vol. 2, p. 476.) 

( Telegram No. 114, Mr. Fish to General Schenck. and Mr. Dan's.) 
* * * The President directs me to say that he accepts the 
declaration of the Tribunal, as its judgment upon a question 
of public law, which he felt that the interests of both Govern- 
ments required should be decided. * * * This is the at- 
tainment of an end which this Government had in view in the 
putting forth of those claims. We had no desire for a pecu- 
niary reward, but desired an expression by the tribunal as to 



26 

the liability of a neutral for claims of that character. (Pa- 
pers, <&c, Vol. 2, p. 578.) 

"There 'are other assertions of important neutral right, but 
these are among the most important. They seem all to be 
available in a possible future to the United States. * * * 
The United States have had occasion to look practically on 
both sides of the question, and therefore sometimes to assert 
neutral duties, while more generally asserting neutral rights 
and the policy of peace, to such an extent and under such cir- 
cumstances as to have rendered the United States the champion 
of neutral rights." * * 

HAMILTON FISH. 

(Palmers, &c, Vol. 4, pp. 548-549.) 

6. 
Builder of ship Delplmie, before H. R. Jud. Com. 

7. ' 

(Mr. Fish to Mr. (lushing, and same to Mr. Mvarts and Mr. Waite. 

Sir : The President having appointed you one of the counsel 
of the United States in the matter submitted to the Tribunal of 
Arbitration, to meet at Geneva, * * it becomes necessary to 
give you briefly the President's instructions on the subject of 
your dmies. * * 

The President desires to have the subject discussed as one be- 
tween the two Governments, and he directs me to urge upon 
you strongly to secure, if possible, the award of a sum in gross. 
In the discussion of this question, and in the treatment of the 
entire case, you will be careful not to commit the Government 
as to the disposition of what may be awarded. * * It is pos- 
sible that there may be duplicate claims for some of the property 
alleged to have been captured or destroyed, as in the cases of 
insurers and insured. The Government wishes to hold itself 
free to decide as to the rights and claims of insurers upon the 
termination of the case. If the value of the property captured 
or destroyed be recovered in the name of the Government, the 
distribution of the amount recovered will be made by this Gov- 



27 

eminent without committal as to the mode of distribution. It 
is expected that all such committal be avoided in the arguraenl 
of counsel. {Papers, dec, Vol. 2, p. 414.1 

In accordance with these instructions, our counsel said to the 
Tribunal : 

" From these arrangements of the Treaty, it is apparent : * * 
Second. That these claims are all preferred by the United 
States as a nation against Great Britain as a nation, and are to 
be so computed and paid, whether awarded as ' a sum in gross,' 
under the seventh article of the Treaty, or awarded for assess- 
ment of amounts, under the tenth article." 



The Tribunal acted without objection upon this statement, 
(see note 7,) and awarded a sum in gross, in satisfaction of all 
the claims — as far removed as possible from deciding whom the 
United States should indemnify from the award. 

9. 

Insurers paid for war losses about $5,750,000. They re- 
ceived in war premiums at least $10,000,000. 

10. 

" From these arrangements of the Treaty, it is apparent : 
F'irst. That the High Contracting Parties have found (in the 
public act of the government of Great Britain, expressing the 
regret of that government for certain occurrences in the past, 
and in the joint public act of the two governments, by which 
they agree to observe, ' as between themselves in future,' the 
rules established as the law of this arbitration, ' and to bring 
them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite 
them to accede to them, 1 ) the means of reducing the measure 
of the complaint, arid demand for indemnity, insisted upon by 
the United States and contested by Great Britain before this 
Tribunal, to all the claims of the United States 'growing but of 
acts committed by the described vessels.'' (Argument of Coun- 
sel U. S., Papers, die, vol. 2>,p. 16.) 



28 

" It cannot therefore be doubted that, in the beginning of the 
year 1871, it was well understood by both Governments that 
the United States maintained that Her Majesty's Government 
ought, under the law of nations, to make good to them the losses 
which they had suffered by reason of the acts of all the cruisers 
typically represented by the Alabama. It is also equally clear 
that the claims for compensation founded upon the Queen's 
proclamation were abandoned' by President Grant P — (Argu- 
ment of U. S. at Geneva, Papers, <&c, vol. 3, p. 196.) 

" While in the treaty, the United States abandoned their 
claims for the premature recognition of belligerent rights." 
{Same, p. 203.) 

" According to Sir Stafford Northcote, also, the claims aban- 
doned by the United States were those 'growing out of the 
premature recognition of belligerency.' * * * He said that 
the ' large class of claims upon which the Americans had • 
hitherto insisted ' were, to be ' shut out,' not because they were 
expressly excluded by the terms of the treaty, but because, * by 
confining the reference solely to losses growing out of the acts 
of particular vessels,' the parties had, in his judgment, made 
it impossible for the United States to connect the objectionable 
claims with what the treaty pointed out as the only cause of 
the injuries which the arbitrators could regard." (Same, p. 204:.) 

" They (English statesmen) felt that they had protected Great 
Britain by the condition which they had imposed upon the 
United States, obliging them to trace all their complaints 
of injury to the acts of the cruisers as the originating cause of 
the damage." (Same, p. 205.) 

" The Johnson-Clarendon Treaty did not exclude from con- 
sideration, at least by words of express exclusion, claims of the 
United States on account of the premature recognition by Great 
Britain of the insurgents. * * * When the treaty of Wash- 
ington came under discussion in Parliament, Lord Granville 
said, and said truly, that in this respect the treaty of Washing- 
ton had advantages over the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty. The 
former did not, like the latter, comprehend the belligerency 
question as a ground of claim. * * 

" It was understood, and it is understood, that the former 
class of injuries (on account of the Queen's proclamation) are 



29 



not. comprised in the treaty, but are in effect excluded by the 
express language of the treaty, which confines reclamation to 
acts of the Confederate cruisers." {Same, p. 209.) 



12. 



The Clarendon-Johnson Convention was rejected for national 
reasons, and to the injury of individual sufferers, (if they were 
not to be indemnified by our Government,) for by that conven- 
tion the unwarrantable recognition was to be considered as a 
basis of claims. Our Minister, Eeverdy Johnson, says of that 
convention: "This question, (recognition of belligerent rights,) 
as well as the question whether this [the English] Government 
had observed their neutral obligations in suffering the Alabama 
and other vessels to be built and escape from their ports, will 
be both before the Commission and the umpire. That their 
decision will be in favor of the United States, I do not doubt. 
The reasons for this conviction 1 will briefly state: First, The 
recognition of belligerent rights. The history of the world 
furnishes no instance of so speedy a recognition in the case of 
revolutionary efforts to subvert an existing government. At 
the time it was made, the insurgents had no port within which 
to build a ship of war, large or small, or the power to get her 
out if she was built. Nor had they any port to which they 
could carry any ship that they might capture as prize of war 
for condemnation in a court of admiralty. * * Upon 
this ground, then, independent of the question of proper dili- 
gence, the obligation of Great Britain to meet the losses seems 
to me to be most apparent. * * • * I am satisfied that if the 
convention goes into operation, every dollar due on what are 
known as the Alabama Claims, will be recovered." — {Johnson 
to SevKcrd, Mess, and Doc. Dept. State, Part 1st, 1868 and 
1869, p. 411.) 

The Queen's proclamation granting belligerent rights was 
issued before Mr. Adams, our Minister, had been received by 
the British government. At his first interview he said: "I 
must be permitted to express the great regret I had felt on 
learning the decision to issue the Queen's proclamation, which 
at once raised the insurgents to the level of a belligerent State. 



30 

* * * It considered them a maritime power before they 
had ever exhibited a single privateer on the ocean." {Cor. 
Concerning Claims vs. G. B.. vol. ],pp. 183-'4r.) 

Mr. Adams, in an official interview with the British govern- 
ment, (April 15, 1862,) said: "I beg, furthermore, to advance 
an opinion that there is not an example in all the history of the 
United States or of Great Britain — nay, [ might say of any civ- 
ilized nation of the world — of so precipitate a recognition of 
belligerent rights to insurgents as this one of which we are 
treating." (P 21-0.) 

Our Government said, October 5, 1863 : " The successive 
preparations of hostile naval expeditions in Great Britain are 
regarded here as fruits of that injudicious proclamation." {P. 
270.) And January 6, 1861: "On our part, we trace all the 
evils to an unnecessary and, as we think, an anomalous recog- 
nition by Her Majesty's government." * * * (P. 273.) 

In a formal note to the British government, dated May 20, 
1865, our Government maintained — 

First. That the act of recognition * * was precipitate 
and unprecedented. 

Second. That it had the effect of creating these parties bel- 
ligerent after the recognition, instead of merely acknowledging 
an existing fact. * * 

Fourth. That during the whole course of the struggle in 
America, of nearly four years duration, there has been no ap- 
pearance of the insurgents as a belligerent on the ocean, ex- 
cepting in the shape of British vessels, constructed, equipped, 
supplied, manned, and armed in British ports. * * 

Seventh. That the failure to check this flagrant abuse of 
neutrality, * * with the aid of the recognition of their bel- 
ligerent character, has resulted in the burning and destroying 
on the ocean a large number of merchant vessels and a very 
large amount of property belonging to the people of the 
United States. * * 

Ninth. That the injuries thus received are of so grave a na- 
ture as in reason and justice to constitute a valid claim for rep- 
aration and indemnification. * * 

The nation that recognized a power as a belligerent before it 
had built a vessel and became itself the sole source of all the 



31 

belligerent character it has ever possessed on the ocean, mnst 
be regarded as responsible for all the damage that has ensued 
from that cause.— (P. 304.) 

13. 

" They (the English statesmen) felt that they had protected 
Great Britain by the condition which they had imposed upon 
the United States, obliging them to trace all their complaints of 
injury to the acts of the cruisers, as the originating cause of the 
damage." — (Amer. Argument at Geneva, Papers, etc., Vol. 3, 
p. 205.) 

According to Sir Stafford Northcote, " by confining the refer- 
ence solely to losses growing out of the acts of particular ves- 
sels," the parties had, in his judgment, made it impossible for 
the United States to connect the objectionable claims with what 
the treaty pointed out as the only cause of the injuries which 
the Arbitrators could regard. — (/Same, 204.) 

14. 

London Times, May 24, 1873, as quotecf in Foreign Relations 
of the U. S., 1873, part 1, p. 368. 

15. 

London Times, May 27, 1873, as quoted in Foreign Relations 
of the U. S., part 1, p. 371. 

16. 

Same, page 377. 

17. 

"In th^e discussion of this question, and in the treatment of 
the entire case, you will be careful not to commit the Govern- 
ment as to the disposition of what may be awarded? (Instruc- 
tions to Counsel at Geneva.) 

18. 

"If the value of the property captured or destroyed be .re- 



32 

covered in the name of the Government, the distribution of the 
amount awarded will be made by this Government.". [Same.) 

19. 

See Revised List of Claims. 

20. 

" When the granting to the Confederates the privileges of bel- 
ligerents resulted in 'the manning and sailing from the Missis- 
sippi of the Sumter, she received in British ports so warm a 
welcome and such effective aid as to encourage the fitting out 
of others from Southern ports, and the building of still others 
in British ports. In every British port these British-caused or 
British-built corsairs were sure to receive congratulations for 
destructions already accomplished, and assistance to enable 
them still to destroy the merchant vessels belonging to citizens 
of the United States. Thus, Great Britain was the moral 
cause of, and became morally responsible for, all the destruc- 
tions of American vessels. It was but simple justice which 
afterwards compelled her to pay an amount sufficient to indem- 
nify the losers for all this destruction. 

The Sumter escaped June 30, 1861. On July 3 she destroyed 
ship Golden Rocket, of Bangor, Maine. A question of great 
interest to ship-owners at once arose, Are the insurers bound to 
pay the owners for this loss \ The owners claimed that the 
covenants of their policy entitled them to recover. The in- 
surers refused payment. The owners appealed to the courts. 
The courts sustained the refusal. This so much alarmed ship- 
owners that most of them at once paid extra premiums for spe- 
cial war insurance. Thus, although the amount of property 
destined by the Sumter was small, the indirect injury occa- 
sioned by her to owners of American vessels was very great. 
The whole amount claimed for destructions by her is but $179,- 
697.67. 

The next vessel which escaped from a Southern port, and was 
welcomed and assisted in English ports, was the Nashville. 
She escaped from Charlestown October 26, 1861. On the 19th 
of November, after having been entertained and supplied at 



33 

Bermuda, she burned ship Harvey Birch, and on February 20, 
1862, schooner Robert Gilfillan. Their value Mas claimed to 
be about $90,000. All the other destructions, for which claims 
have been preferred to our Government, were caused by British- 
built vessels or their tenders, except the trifling amounts of 
loss by the Boston, Jeff Davis, Retribution, and Sallie, the 
claims for which in the aggregate amount to but $12,710.53, of 
which $30,896.53 is claimed by insurance companies. There 
were six of these British-built cruisers, (the Florida, Alabama, 
Georgia, Tallahasse or Olustee, Chichamauga, and Shenan- 
doah^) three of which, the Alabama, Georgia, and Shenan- 
doah, were never in a port of the so-called Confederate States. 

A very large majority of all the injury done to American 
commerce by Confederate cruisers was done by the Alabama, 
the Florida, with her tenders, (the Clarence and Ihcony,) and 
the Shenandoah, the amounts claimed being for the Alabama* 
$7,050,293.76; Florida and her tenders, $1,293,869.60 ; She- 
nandoah, $6,656,838.81, making more than eighteen million 
dollars. 

The amounts claimed for loss by the Chichamauga, Georgia, 
and Tallahassee were respectively $183,070.73, $131,160.72, 
and $836,841.83, or $1,451,073.28 (less than one and a half 
million) for the three. It should lie remembered that in these 
several amounts claimed are included the very large amounts 
which were sb properly set aside by the Geneva Tribunal as 
" prospective earnings,"" " double claims for the same loss, and 
gross freight exceeding net freight. 1 ' 

[These figures will be of interest when noticing the results 
of the Geneva arbitration. The Tribunal established rules of 
international liability which would cover the acts of the Ala- 
bama, the Florida and her tenders, and of the Shenandoah 
after she left Australia, or nearly seventeen millions five hun- 
dred thousand dollars of gross claims; while the gross claims 
for the acts of the Shenandoah before she reached Australia, 
and of all the other cruisers, are less than two million three 
hundred thousand dollars.] {Short History of Long Negotia- 
tions.) 



>N*-A 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 709 509 9 » 



iffC* 



